Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

You brought up Loving. And the problem settled by the court was her race. HE married a black woman.

So, if you want to bring up race then deny you did so, no skin off my nose. You have to live with yourself.

Yes, men or women marrying the same sex makes no sense at all. None. Zip.

You love that sort of thing. That is how you swing.

I don't.

 

It makes a lot of sense Genetically.

And Biologically as homosexual behavior is observed in thousands of other species.

AA

 

A good number of animals sniff feces too. But It would shock me to see a lot of men doing that. And female dogs lay on their backs. Do you see homosexual women doing that when men show up?

 

You cannot compare the courting actions of different species.

AA

 

Your opinion.

 

Here's a real question for you Robert, I'm not trying to be provocative I'm genuinely curious. You said in this post that "you love that sort of thing. That is how you swing. I don't." I'm wondering if you think it should be illegal. If some people swing that way, are you ok just letting us swing that way knowing you never will? Or do you want to see gay marriage disappear again? If you acknowledge that some people swing that way and you don't, isn't that enough to just let people have the freedom to live how they want knowing you'll never have to live that way?

 

So women marrying women is okay in your book? Or do lesbians squick you out as well?

I was raised by parents who taught me to respect other people's beliefs and to not discriminate against them because they might be different than me, whether that was because of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The fact that they were a mixed religious couple might have more to do with that than being democrats.

Tolerance, it's a wonderful thing that keeps society together.

 

I voted for civil unions for homosexuals in order to handle their legal problems.

It is not what I want laws to deal with. If they want to be with each other, it is up to them. Passing a law would actually offend me.

I believe marriage is a triangle.

Mom and pop and just as you have a mom and pop, you came into being and that made three in the family.

You never would have had your parents had they been homosexuals. But I don't ever get into other people's relationships. I realize a lot happens that offends me. So long as my pals and my family are not mixed up in this, others should be free to do as they please.

 

No to women marrying women.

As i told the other poster, greatdanechick, what others do is their business.

I told her I voted for civil unions to hand to homosexuals the legal path to lead a legal happy life.

It shocked me to see some posters giving me heck because I took up for homosexuals.

As to tolerance, that cuts a lot of ways. People should show tolerance to my stated beliefs. I don't compare homosexuality to the things you say you compare it to.

As to your tolerance for religions, I wonder if you are tolerant of that fringe christian group that pickets funerals?

I have stated my own brother was a homosexual. My sister married one. I know plenty about this.

Don't get me wrong, I never would have accepted people being intolerant of my homosexual brother but he never said he wanted the word marriage to include homosexuals.

You would not know this but even in my church, we put a super high value on family. We believe that the sexes were intended to mate and have children. We don't see how a man can impregnate a man nor a woman impregnate a woman. Matter of fact, my church still will not marry homosexuals.

 

You tried to compare unthinking animals to human homosexuals.

I figured one turn deserves another.

 

Again, genuine curiosity here. What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? You are for one but against the other. What differences do you see between the two?

 

"unthinking animal"??? I have a couple of cats who think more than some people on this forum.

 

Due to my training on laws, I see each legal word as a separate word. It does not have to mean "separate but equal."

I will use a law dictionary when it comes to words.

I quarantined the word marriage for the one man to one woman event.

So to assist homosexuals, to have them treated equally per the law, we had to have a good word when they need legal help.

I see differences, vast differences between the bonds of homosexuals vs heterosexuals. Even they see vast differences.

I understand why for legal purposes, homosexuals needed to engage the law to assist their problems. I was not considering a married couple (man to woman) as non equals. I go by blacks Law dictionary as best as i am able.

My way leaves bans on incest family marriages intact. This way I see no way to ban any form of marriage. The barn is burning down. I predict we will see some marrying multiple women. Maybe women will marry multiple men, Some women may find that useful.

They say elections have consequences and I say words have consequences.

The law sees a difference in robbery vs theft. Each takes property yet has a legal difference.
We can site a lot of cases where the law defines an act that seems the same only the outcome is different.

I hope this helps you.

 

I'm sorry, but if you are trained in the application of law as you say you are, you would have instantly recognized the basic
failure of Civil Unions - they are not recognized at the Federal Level. There is no consistency to civil unions at the state level, you
might not be able to file tax returns as married in state a and move to state b and get the same treatment at the Federal Level.
The Feds don't recognize civil unions as far as military benefits, Social Security, or immigration status.

Civil Unions DO NOT equal marriage at the Federal Level. That is one of the major reasons the Supreme Court struck down
bans on same sex marriage.

Hope this helps you.

 

A very simple fix by the Feds would have solved that.

A fairly tight worded statement that all benefits in Federal law that apply to the married apply equally to homosexuals.

A hell of a lot better than what has happened.

My way and this country would not be split on this issue. Your way and to help a fringe group, you upset a hell of a lot of the public.

 

There is a simple test as to your sincerity - did you attempt - or did any of those against same sex marriage - attempt to
pass ANY legislation that would have made Civil Unions equal in all legal aspects to marriage at the Federal Level?

No. That did not happen.

IN FACT, a number of states passed legislation that not only banned same sex marriage, they banned same sex civil
unions as well.


And why would that be better? Thousands of state laws would have had to have been changed to make civil unions equal
in ALL STATES and at the Federal Level to marriage. Now, almost nothing needs to be changed - marriage is marriage - there
are just a few less marriage ban laws to deal with. Income tax forms don't have to be changed to include civil unions. Immigration forms don't
have to be changed to include civil unions. Social Security regulations don't have to be changed.

Trying to make civil unions the equal of marriage would have been FAR MORE complicated legally than simply
dropping the ban on same sex marriage.

Proof. There have been over 30,000 same sex marriages. There have been lawsuits or disputes in about .002% of said
marriages.

 

You nor I create law at the Federal level. Try and try if you don't believe me. Even homosexuals never went the route I suggest would have fixed all of their problems. Obama issues executive orders lacking force of law yet he gets away with it.

He arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania ave devoted to a man to a woman = marriage. The man lacks convictions.

He never suggested that I know of a fix.

So to chide me over my help at the state level makes no sense to me at all.

I believe the ultimate aim of homosexuals was a legal form of bond that gave them full vested benefits at all levels of Government. The Feds shove states around all the time. CA no doubt would have gone with the flow and gone for my solution.

I hate helping people get up only to have them slap me down.

As you pointed out, all things considered, so few people were impacted that they now have this legal condition you speak of, it was hardly worth taking to the Supreme Court.

I believe at the Federal level were the majority of problems and you brought up Federal problems. Easy to fix if one really tried.

Did homosexuals try to go the Federal route? I would not really know.

 

In what way has your life been impacted by the striking down of same sex marriage bans? Not imagined ones, or possibilities - but
how has the simple fact that 30,000 same sex marriages have occurred affected YOU in ANY WAY?

How have YOU been "slapped down"?

 

Remember her Bobby?

Kim Davis: Gays Were Trying To Shove The Supreme Court Ruling 'Down My Throat And Make Me Eat It For My Dinner' - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...-and-make-me-eat-it-my-d#sthash.uV4WokuQ.dpuf

 

Are you trying to pretend you are my pal by the false use of my name?

If you tried to goad me, you failed.

I have told many homosexuals what they accomplished was to shoot a bolt of lightning into this country trying to force homosexual beliefs on all of us.

Don't you believe that happened?

 

When you get to be the age I am, you will tell others you saw a lot of changes. You guys are not done yet. Not by a landslide. Your plans for this nation will turn this nation into a lot of malcontents.

Marriage now has to include any that are banned by law. To make them unequal mocks the homosexuals claim they did it for equality.

 

Come on Bobby, first of all, what the hell are '" homosexual beliefs"? What are heterosexual beliefs? People 'believe many things' irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Do you think that gay people have a monolithic set of 'beliefs"? Sexuality is not a belief .....it is who they are.

And as far as forcing anything on you goes......that is just ridiculous! Are you so weak minded that a court order has forced you to change your 'beliefs' or so insecure as to think that it even can? The fact is that nobody cares a hoot about your beliefs or what daemons you harbor that makes you think that you can deny others rights. I care only about your behavior and what you openly advocate- which is clearly discrimination. Have you ever heard of ' live and let live' ? translation: shut the hell up and go about your life as you see fit and let other do the same. A lightning bolt Bobby? Seriously ? Many people didn't even notice and most of those who did have forgotten about it by now. What has changed , really? Move on, get over it dude!